On 02 Jan 2004 07:43:22 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It would appear as though you were again putting words in someone's
mouth.

John H

No, it's a device known as "characterizing."

No person actually spoke those words.
They were simply chosen to represent, or "characterize" two contrasting
approaches.

What the heck do you teach, John?
I suspect it isn't language arts. :-)

I'm retired from teaching math. Now I do substitute teaching, which is
cheap babysitting unless the subject is math. Then I will teach
whatever the lesson of the day is.

"Characterizing" sounds like a neat trick. That means I can basically
do whatever I want with someone's statement. I could take something
like this,

"We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for
American global leadership."

and, by "characterizing" change it to,

"We aim to bend the world to our moral and religious values, to
economically and morally colonize other countries, and become the
world's moral and military police."

I guess, if twisting and turning is allowed, then this
"characterization" stuff is quite cool. Thanks for the language arts
lesson.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


"Characterizing" sounds like a neat trick. That means I can basically
do whatever I want with someone's statement. I could take something
like this,

Chuck offered just one example, as did you. But, "characterizing" can also
be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language,
but instead trying to understand gibberish. Think of the typical unrehearsed
responses when reporters corner Curious George. Or even the rehearsed
statements, like "When we talk about war, we're really talkin' about peace".
scratching head

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:npeJb.32917

..... But, "characterizing" can also
be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language,
but instead trying to understand gibberish.

I agree.

The ability and opportunity to characterize speech can help bring clarity
and understanding to those who otherwise simply wouldn't truly comprehend
what is happening. For example, in cases where circumstances require that
you carefully and specifically define the meaning of the word "is", or to
help elucidate the meaning of convoluted or confusing statements like "I
did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms Lewinski."

That sort of thing.

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 09:22:33 -0500, "John Gaquin"
wrote:


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:npeJb.32917

..... But, "characterizing" can also
be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language,
but instead trying to understand gibberish.

I agree.

The ability and opportunity to characterize speech can help bring clarity
and understanding to those who otherwise simply wouldn't truly comprehend
what is happening. For example, in cases where circumstances require that
you carefully and specifically define the meaning of the word "is", or to
help elucidate the meaning of convoluted or confusing statements like "I
did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms Lewinski."

That sort of thing.

I see. (meaning - I read.) This characterizing thing is becoming quite
clear. I do appreciate all the help with my language arts.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


I see. (meaning - I read.) This characterizing thing is becoming quite
clear. I do appreciate all the help with my language arts.

John H


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 15:56:23 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


I see. (meaning - I read.) This characterizing thing is becoming quite
clear. I do appreciate all the help with my language arts.

John H


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.


As a matter of fact, it seems as though there are several people in
this news group who do interpret a piece of writing in an extreme way,
bordering on the absurd. Very often, it does falsify the original
information. Yet these folks see no problem in this, and even seem to
believe the extremely absurd "characterizations" they have developed.

Have you noticed this?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.


As a matter of fact, it seems as though there are several people in
this news group who do interpret a piece of writing in an extreme way,
bordering on the absurd. Very often, it does falsify the original
information. Yet these folks see no problem in this, and even seem to
believe the extremely absurd "characterizations" they have developed.

Have you noticed this?

John H

Maybe. :-) But,. it's 45 degrees, the rain has stopped, and I'm having
hallucinations. There are brown trout drifting along the wall behind my
desk. I can't focus on anything else at the moment.

Doug Kanter wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
...


I see. (meaning - I read.) This characterizing thing is becoming quite
clear. I do appreciate all the help with my language arts.

John H


Sometimes, it's conversationally useful to take a situation or a piece of
writing and interpret in an extreme way which borders on the absurd. That
doesn't always falsify the original information, but it may serve to plow
through the cotton some people insert in their ears each morning.



You're wasting your time with John Herring. He lives in a rigid little
box and can't see its corners, never mind the opening at the top.

--
Email sent to is never read.

John Gaquin wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:npeJb.32917

..... But, "characterizing" can also
be a form of translation when you're not dealing with a foreign language,
but instead trying to understand gibberish.

I agree.

The ability and opportunity to characterize speech can help bring clarity
and understanding to those who otherwise simply wouldn't truly comprehend
what is happening. For example, in cases where circumstances require that
you carefully and specifically define the meaning of the word "is", or to
help elucidate the meaning of convoluted or confusing statements like "I
did not have sexual relations with that woman -- Ms Lewinski."

That sort of thing.



Yes, clarity would certainly help George W. Bush overcome his incessant
lying about everything important.



--
Email sent to is never read.

"Characterizing" sounds like a neat trick. That means I can basically
do whatever I want with someone's
statement.

No, you can't just screw around with an acutal quote and claim that "Bush
said..................." if Bush did not. That's not characterization.

Reread the item that has you confused.
It compared two possible approaches to
diplomacy, from the perspective of the US
"speaking" to a foreign power.
There was no claim that either of the contrasting statements were attributable
to
any specific person or group. Why you now insist on infering that there was is
a bit puzzling. It's almost as if you're hoping to distract from the message by
shifitng discussion to the medium.